 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company v. Ho12/19/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART
Roy and Erickson, JJ., concur
This is a declaratory judgment action to determine whether a garage business insurance policy issued by plaintiff, Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, covers actions of the garage owner who appropriated a customer's car after business hours, became intoxicated, and caused an accident that resulted in severe personal injuries to defendant, An H. Ho. Farmers Alliance appeals the summary judgment finding insurance coverage and awarding attorney fees in favor of An Ho. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Following the accident, An Ho commenced a personal injury action against garage owner, who tendered defense of the lawsuit to Farmers Alliance and to the customer's personal auto insurer. Both companies issued reservation of rights letters. The parties eventually settled through an agreement whereby An Ho released garage owner from personal liability and the parties agreed to resolve coverage issues through this declaratory judgment action. They agreed that, if the court found coverage, the companies would pay An Ho their policy limits.
Ruling that coverage existed under both policies, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of An Ho and awarded him his attorney fees and costs. The personal auto insurer settled with An Ho following the ruling, and this appeal followed.
I.
Farmers Alliance contends the trial court erred in finding coverage under the garage business policy because the customer's car was not a covered auto. We disagree.
The interpretation of an insurance policy presents a question of law that we review de novo. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Huizar, 52 P.3d 816 (Colo. 2002); Cruz v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 12 P.3d 307 (Colo. App. 2000).
An insurance policy is a contract, which should be interpreted consistently with well-settled principles of contract interpretation. The words of the contract should be given their plain meaning according to common usage, and strained constructions should be avoided. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Huizar, supra; Allstate Insurance Co. v. Starke, 797 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1990). Accordingly, we construe the terms of an insurance policy as a person of ordinary intelligence would understand them. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Nissen, 851 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1993).
The garage policy at issue here reads in pertinent part:
We will pay all sums an "insured" legally must pay as damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance applies, caused by an "accident" and resulting from "garage operations" involving the ownership, maintenance or use of covered "autos".
The policy defines "garage operations" as follows:
"Garage Operations" means the ownership, maintenance, or use of locations for garage business and that portion of the roads or other accesses that adjoin those locations. "Garage operations" includes the ownership, maintenance or use of the "autos" indicated in Section I of this Coverage Form as covered "autos". "Garage operations" also include all operations necessary or incidental to a garage business.
The policy categorizes "covered autos" by way of numerical symbols. The coverage form lists a "menu" of ten potential categories of described autos from which the insured and the insurer select. The declarations page then identifies the covered autos by use of the number.
The three pertinent categories at issue here are:
28 = HIRED "AUTOS" ONLY. Only those "autos" you lease, hire, rent or borrow. This does not include any "auto" you lease, hire,
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|